Call for New Phrases: "Reform" is bad

Inspired by Liberation Learning's fabulous diary on Scott McClellan as well as the great frameshop series by Jeffrey Feldman, I want to call for a moratorium on Social Security and Tort "Reform."

Instead, we need a new phrase for both of these.  Calling for submissions.

I was inspired when I saw this over at Kevin Drum's blog:

here's what the Republican agenda appears to be: privatizing Social Security, enacting tort reform, restricting immigration, getting started on tax reform, and cutting the Pentagon budget.

It was a fair enough litany, but not on message enough.

We need to eliminate the word reform from anything the Repugs do.  Why?  Because "reform" sounds like "fix," and, well, you don't fix it if it ain't broken.  And, as we all know, Social Security isn't broken, insurance companies need to be attacked, not lawyers, and if anything needs to be reformed, it's medicare.

Now, in my open thread post on this issue, I had responses from Truthbetold and AggressiveProgressive.  They were pushing "Social Security Pirate-ization" and calling for just plugging in the word "fascism" every chance we get.

The problems with those approaches are obvious.  "Pirate-ization" sounds too much like the Repugs LIEberal and DemocRAT, i.e., something that plays only to the base.  The "fascism" suggestion is good, and, frankly, I think we could do with having some of our more prominent Dems start calling the Repugs fascists (if only to steal back  the word from the absurd "Islamofascist").  But the weakness of "fascism" is that it speaks to our values, not theirs.

We need something that, say, Hilary Clinton could say on TV.  More than that, we need something that appropriates a core conservative value.  "Pro-choice" does that.  "Choice," "individuality," these are terms that speak to core values, however insincerely, of conservatives.  

Perhaps the main problem with Social Security is that it's a program that benefits people as a group rather than as individuals. That's why the Repugs call it Social Security "privitazation": something private is something exclusively for the individual, and so speaks to a key conservative value.  Note this point, taken from a diary that cited a letter by Rick Santorum.  Santorum wrote:

During my time in the United States Senate, I have worked to build support for proposals that would safeguard benefits for current retirees and those nearing retirement age, while allowing younger men and women the option of saving part of their earnings in personal accounts that they would own, building a nest egg that would, unlike Social Security, be an asset that their loved ones could inherit.

And then there's this letter from a Conservative nutjob, reprinted by Josh Marshall:

 Do you hear of anyone addressing the fraud of this scam, that bilks FICA payers out of their contributions, if not living to collect any benefits, or having no eligible survivors?

We know politicians depend on Socialist Insecurity to keep their jobs, but it`s a national disgrace to defraud FICA payers out of their hard-earned pay.

The Repugs, despite appropriating "patriotism," also speak well against collectivism and for selfishness.  That's the common theme of both the Santorum and the wingnut letter.  We know that Social Security is inherited, but instead on a family-by-family basis, it is the inheritance bequeathed by one set of citizens to another.  But we're not going to be able to steal the nutjobs' thunder by telling them they shouldn't be selfish, that they should be interested in the health of all citizens, &c.; we need, instead, to convince them that they're being selfish and pro-family by supporting Social Security.

So, now it's open season.  We need to replace SS and tort "reform" with phrases that appropriate key conservative values: choice, individuality, patriotism, family, God.  Or, if we can, we need to use the key conservative fear point, i.e., xenophobia.

Remember: it's not that the Dems need to move right.  It's that we need to sound like we're moving right while all the while promoting, I hope, our far left agenda.

C'mon, let's be insincere! Any takers? Give us a phrase.

•  Gutting social security insurance

  is what it is, I see no reason to call it anything different.

  by Feanor on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:10:08 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    Gutting
    Killing
    Destrying
    Sabotaging
    Crippling
    Raiding
    Raping
    Looting

    etc.

    by Gearhead on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:23:37 AM PDT

  •  Here's why

    Because we need to appeal to the conservatives too.  Some of them probably believe Social Security needs to be gutted because it violates their belief in self-sufficiency, etc.  The question is, how do we save SS while appealing to the conservative mindset?

    by Karl the Idiot on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 10:07:35 AM PDT

    •  Umm, n,o

      we don't need to appeal to the conservatives who believe Social Security needs to be gutted.

      That is a tiny, tiny minority of the American public and they are the people on the opposite side of the issue.
      

      by Feanor on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 11:46:02 AM PDT

•  The President's Social Insecurity Plan...

  and the President's Corporate Irresponsibility Plan?

  by wdrath on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:33:08 AM PDT

•  troubling washpost poll

  Today's story on a poll about public support for the president's plans to "fix social security" is a great example of the problem. The topline results show wide support for the "reform" - 63 and 74 majorities believe there is a problem.

  But equally big majorities disagree with the solutions - 62 per cent against a "fix" that might result in declining benefits, as the republican efforts would.

  It's a great illustration of how successful they are at creating a false sense of urgency around a nonexistent problem, and build support for their general approach, all the while most people disagree with them on the details.

  We can't let them cement this impression that there is a big problem that needs to be fixed.

  We should work to show a parallel to the disinformation around weapons of mass destruction, where we were assured that there was a problem that needed urgent attention. Like the war in Iraq, Privatization of Social Security will leave us less secure.

  It's a private raid on public assets that will leave us less secure.

  Still searching for the one or two words that capture this....

     

  by fairnbalanced on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:33:39 AM PDT

•  My nominees...

  Tax "reform" = Middle and lower class tax hike. No magic spin or frame needed--there is no doubt that a "revenue neutral" tax reform that eliminates tax deductions for businesses for employee health care, that does not raise taxes on corporations or capital gains, will increase taxes for the rest of us.

  Tort "reform" = Corporate misconduct protection

  Social security "reform" = $2 trillion dollar Wall Street windfall

  by baldandy on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:34:03 AM PDT

•  I'm still learning about this issue...

  Maybe you can help me here: FICA refers to social security, does it not? Doesn't a surving partner collect part of the dead spouse's social security income?

  I'm not sure that I agree with you that we need to sound like we're moving right. I'm not sure I know what you mean by this.

  Social security was meant to be an insurance policy for old age. The stock market is for people with extra money to gamble. The two don't mix.

  Perhaps we need to publicize more the eratic history of the stock market.

   

  by scorpiorising on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:40:37 AM PDT

  •  aeou

    I don't understand money issues either, but here's something on FICA.

    What I mean about sounding like we're moving right is that we have to appropriate the language of the right, terms like patriotism, country, family, God, self-interest, and so forth.  This move will help us appeal to the right, I think, especially if we combine this with a set of cajones.

    As is suggested below, remember that the rich make money off the stock market.  It's the little people who get killed by it, right?  And it's the little people who need to be protected.

    The problem is that everyone likes to think that he or she is going to be the one to get rich.

    So if we're going to focus on the erratic nature of the stock market, we need to tie it to, say, Enron.  "They want to give your retirement money to Enron!"  Sure, the Repugs will say, "no, you can choose who to give it to."  And we say, "no, they don't want you to know what's going on.  Look at what happened with Enron.  Lots of people chose to give their money to Enron, but they lost everything because Enron and the Republicans didn't want these investors to know the truth.  Why should you trust the Republicans and Wall Street with your retirement?"

    That's an approach, anyhow.

    by Karl the Idiot on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 10:06:02 AM PDT

•  Right Play, Wrong Call

  Finding and using the appropriate language is, indeed, the right play. But you need to start with how you talk about the play itself, i.e. the way you're calling it:

  "Remember: it's not that the Dems need to move right.  It's that we need to  sound  like we're moving right while all the while promoting, I hope, our far left agenda."

  This is mistaken on two counts.

  (1) There is nothing "far left" about preserving Social Security. Dwight D. Eisenhower did it. Richard Nixon did it. Even Ronald Reagan did it. Not a leftist among 'em.

  (2) We don't need to sound like we're moving right. We need to language that appeals to people accross the political spectrum, that moves people on the right toward us.

  This mis-perception is not simply tacked on the end, however. You seem to think that privatization is a term that favor the privatizers. But it doesn't. Luntz himself has focus-grouped it and declared that "if the debate is about privatization, we will lose" (paraphrase). The winning term he found was "personalize."

  This is backed up by the howls you hear whenever a Democrat says "privatization" and the Bushies say, "No, no, no!  We're not going to do that!"

  So, all we have to do is use "privatization" instead of "reform."

  That said, I think that "Enronization" is a good term to use as well.  But it's best to use it as a followup, like this:

  "I'm strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security, because it would destroy the system, and leave those who need it most eating catfood, just as it has done in Chile and Great Britain. Whatever the theory, in practice, privatization is Enronization, and there's no limit to the number of people who'll get screwed."

  Furthermore, underlying all those arguments such as the nutjob letter Josh Marshall reprinted is the fundamental confusion between investment and insurance. The best way to deal with this is a nuclear counter-attack:

  "Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're talking about Social Security as if it were an investment scheme. It's not. It's an insurance system. You're comparing apples and oranges. Republicans who do that are either economically incompetent, utterly dishonest, or both."

  As for "tort reform", how about calling a spade a spade? "Bad business protection."

  by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 08:40:53 AM PDT

  •  Good reading

    I'm a little surprised that privitization plays so well for us!

    I believe what you say, but I'm trying to figure that out, since privitization seems to speak well to core conservative values.

    I think linking SS "privitization" to Enron, though, is a really good idea.  Even the conservatives are embarassed by Enron.

    "The Republicans want to give your SS to the same people who brought you Enron.  They want Martha Stewart to have control over your retirement money!"

    Something like that.  Notice the way I put your into the sentence.  We have to make people believe that SS belongs to them and that the Republicans are trying to steal it.  Now, this approach has an added bonus in that it's actually true.

    --

    Oh, I know there's nothing "far left" about preserving Social Security.  I was being a little snarky there.  What I mean is while we're preserving SS, why not use right wing language to promote things that are actually far left, say, universal health care, increased public transportation, and so forth, you know, the things that used to be thought common sense until the John Birchers got hold of them.

    by Karl the Idiot on Wed Dec 22, 2004 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

•  What's your solution...

  ...To hospitals closing left and right?

  I've heard the arguments against tort reform, and they're convincing on the whole.

  But the thing is, there are very real problems out there that we're not proposing plans to address.

  What's our solution to the increase in hospital closures?

  by PersonalResponsibilityReloaded on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 01:49:41 AM PDT

  •  aeou

    That's not really apposite to what I was talking about.

    I was talking about language choices, framing, and so forth.

    Tort 'reform' is a crock.  Obviously.

    --

    Hospital closures?  I don't know.  You have a solution?  The only answer seems to be a single-payer health care system, i.e., socialized medicine.  The leader industrialized nations do it and it's successful.  We don't and our health care sucks.

    by Karl the Idiot on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 01:36:10 PM PDT